KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PVT LTD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

1) of the Act . Subsequently information was received by the AO from the Sales- tax Authorities, Mumbai regarding certain parties who were engaged in the activity of issuing accommodation bills without actually supplying the goods and the Assessee Company had also made purchases from some of these bill racketeers. The assessment of the Assessee for the assessment year

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

1) of the Act . Subsequently information was received by the AO from the Sales- tax Authorities, Mumbai regarding certain parties who were engaged in the activity of issuing accommodation bills without actually supplying the goods and the Assessee Company had also made purchases from some of these bill racketeers. The assessment of the Assessee for the assessment year

VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

bogus purchases for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

bogus purchases for the year under consideration. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 1213 & 2164/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2020-21) Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd 9. With regard to Ground No. 4, which is in respect of disallowance

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

bogus. Referring to\nthese observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case,\nhad sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase\nprice, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to\nhim implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly\ndisallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at\nRs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus. Referring to\nthese observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case,\nhad sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase\nprice, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to\nhim implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly\ndisallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at\nRs.139

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

1) to Section 37(1) of the Act was unjustified.\n68\nITA No.879 to 883/M/2021\n& Others (Assessee & Revenue)\nA.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15\nIPCA Laboratories Ltd\nThus, the entire disallowance is held to be unsustainable and is\ndirected to be deleted.\n11.13 Now coming to AY 2010-11, as noted above, the CBDT\nCircular No. 5/2012

ITO, MUMBAI vs. SHEMON JEWELS, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by the revenue are emerged from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘The Act’) dated 16-01-2025 and 26-12- 2-24 for the assessment year